And what will folks do in November to address this failure of regulation to provide for what "we" get? Nothing. They'll still vote pro-business legislators into office, who will appoint pro-business officials, just like has been the case for the last thirty-five years.

It's been a lot more than 35 years, and the problem is, the voters don't have a choice. Through political party contributions and direct control of the political parties, businesses make certain no one who is not pro-business ever even has his name on the ballot. Then, through PACs and lobbyist activities, they make certain their puppets keep voting in their favor. The only chance a non-business interest usually stands in any of it is engendered by the fact many businesses have opposing interests. What's good for oil and aluminum if often bad for steel and coal, for example. What's good for AT&T is frequently bad for the CATV industry. DirecTV and Echostar wish Verizon would eat $#!@ and die.

Well, I couldn't defend an assertion that putting Jimmy Carter into office was in any way "pro-business". Quite the opposite. However, since then . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrhorer

and the problem is, the voters don't have a choice.

The voters always have had a choice: They simply are unwilling to put this consideration high enough on their list of priorities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrhorer

Through political party contributions and direct control of the political parties, businesses make certain no one who is not pro-business ever even has his name on the ballot.

No more than half of the Democratic Party is pro-business. Some consumerist (anti-business) Democrats ran for President this year. And between the last two Democrats vying for the nomination, the more pro-business Democrat lost. So choice is at work. Will Obama win, and move this country a little ways back from the pro-business position we've been in? I don't know. (I'm not sure who I'm voting for, yet, by the way.) However, before this year, the American voter has been pretty consistently supporting the pro-business candidate. That's why things are they way they are.

I called TiVo on an unrelated matter today, and they said yes, available at your cable company now; but I think they confused SDV with the digital change coming early next year.

At least for those of us using Cox in AZ, the latest info I've seen indicates that the tuning adapter won't be ready for distribution until November, which we all know means we won't see it until sometime in 2009.

Well, I couldn't defend an assertion that putting Jimmy Carter into office was in any way "pro-business". Quite the opposite. However, since then . . .

I certainly can. He was not as pro-business as some, to be sure, but there is a difference between being less rabidly behnd something and being against something. More importantly, who the president may be is largely irrelevant. He does not propose legislation and he does not ratify it. He can veto it, but even that power is in practical terms limited to resolutions which fall close to but below the 2/3 line. Unless he attempts a pocket veto, only possible at the end of a congressionsal session, his veto will get overturned, and there is little point in even trying. Nonetheless, Jimmy Carter signed tons of pro-business legislation into law, and did nothing about even more already standing pro-business legislation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

The voters always have had a choice: They simply are unwilling to put this consideration high enough on their list of priorities.

No, they don't. When was the last time a middle class person had their name placed on the ballot? One not affiliated with any political organization? A rich person, no matter how "liberal", is virtually assured to have a pro-business bias. After all, an anti-business bias will not only prevent a rich person from getting the necessary campaign funds and party support, it will personally cost them money. Hypothetically, a politician could allow his own personal gains to take a back seat in a major way to moral or ethical considerations. In practice, however, this would mean the individual must have ethics and morals, but by definition a politician is a person whose morals and ethics are for sale to the highest bidder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

No more than half of the Democratic Party is pro-business. Some consumerist (anti-business) Democrats ran for President this year. And between the last two Democrats vying for the nomination, the more pro-business Democrat lost.

You are making several incorrect assumptions:

1. Had she won, it would have made a difference. In fact, in general it would not. The losing candidate had to accumulate just about as much money for her campaign as the winner, and had she won she would have been obligated to the people who bought the election. Failure to honor those obligations would have made it certain she would receive virtually no support from anyone for re-election, or for election to any other office. Bite the hand that feeds you, and no one will want to feed you, not just the person who was bitten.

2. A loss of a single pro business vote makes a difference. This is rarey the case. All business have to do is have enough out of 218 congressmen and 51 senators in their pocket to have their way. Since not 1 in 50 are going to vote significantly against businesses in general because they themselves stand to profit from successful businesses, all business intests have to do is have the ones in their pockets apply political pressure to the few who are not.

3. Hanging a label on a person makes some sort of difference. It doesn't, especially for someone whose livelihood is entirely dependant upon making people believe they are something they are not. Scratch the surface of any "pro-consumerist" politician and you will find a dedicated company man, bought and paid for. An "anti-business" politician will vote against business when they know the vote is going to be a landslide so they can point to their anti-business voting record, but when it comes down to it, the vast majority only care they can get enough financial backing the next time they run for something so they can get out in front of enough voters and be elected. Make no mistake, every election is bought. At least one person pays for it (with other people's money) and fails to buy it, while one person pays pretty much just as much for it and is successful in buying it. The people who give the winner his money to buy the election expect somethng in return. If they don't get it, they become very, very nasty. Perhaps you don't realize it, but every corporation in America who contriibutes to a political race (which is essentially every major corporation) contributes not to a single candidate, and not to just the so labeled "pro-business" candidates, but to every candidate in the race. Indeed, if the "pro-consumer" candidate is a much better political bet, they often give more money to the putatively pro-consumer candidate. The corporations which supported Hillary also supported Obama and McCain, and now continue to support Obama and McCain even more strongly now than they did Hillary. What does that tell you?

4. Elected officials determine policy. They do not. Although they may issue policy directives, if the bureaucrats who actually implement and enforce policy don't want to carry out one of the directives then they will each and every one individually see to it the directive is not enforced.

Are there exceptions to these rules? Without doubt, but an occasional exception to the rule does not get a majority of votes among a group of 530 plus rich businessmen, and a majority vote among 545 rich businessmen does not prevent an EPA inspector from taking a $50,000 bribe from a chemical plant, or an INS agent from looking the other way when his brother-in-law violates federal regulations concerning the hiring of illegal aliens. It also doesn't prevent a corrupt judge (or even one who isn't corrupt) from ruling arbitrarily in favor of a business interest no matter what the law says. It also doesn't compel FCC officials to get off their arses and force a draft of a reasonable, workable set of specifications and regulations concerning separable security in 2-way CATV devices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

So choice is at work.

No, it isn't. Show me a way an individual with no business afiliations can win a national election with zero campaign spending, no approvals from any party officials, no promises made to any profitable organization, and also be moderately assured he might win a re-election or election to another position without any such strings attached, and I'll concede it's hypothetically possible. I won't concede it's even remotely likely, however, unless in addition you find a way to make the vast majority of voters independant of any paycheck from a business. Until then, the notion of "choice" is as illusory as the communist notion of allowing the voters to vote on a single candidate. Then show me how this miracle election is actually going to prevent businesses from buying hundreds of his peers (or even him) and tens of thousands of government officials below him, and I'll concede this non-existent choice actually has an effect except when clear-cut business interests are not at stake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

Will Obama win, and move this country a little ways back from the pro-business position we've been in?

'Not a chance, whether he is elected or not, and no more so of a chance had George McGovern been elected, or even Mao Tse Tung. Make no mistake, even if they had the ability to actually do it, which they don't, they know perfectly well on which side their bread is buttered. So do the more than 1 million bureaucrats who actually shape and enforce policy and for which the public has no vote whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

I don't know. (I'm not sure who I'm voting for, yet, by the way.)

The only thing for which I would gladly elect either of the current two bozos is to stand in front of a firing squad, but you illustrate my point. Our "choice" is between a totally corrupt, incompetent Democratic moron who should not be allowed to lead a conga line and a totally corrupt, incompetent Republican moron who should not be allowed to lead a conga line. Some choice, huh? When someone like Seargent Alvin York, George Washington Carver, or the nameless drifter in Georgia who refused to step off a train track when a train was rushing toward him because he and her husband weren't able to free the young woman whose foot was caught on the tracks have their name on the ballot, free of campaign obligations, then I will concede we have a choice. Until then, all we have a a choice of two or more big business lackeys for virtually every political position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

However, before this year, the American voter has been pretty consistently supporting the pro-business candidate. That's why things are they way they are.

Things have been the way they are for 6000 years. I only say 6000, because we don't have records which go back much further than that.
Rich people have always ruled things. Today, to a certain extent the rich people have hidden their names behind the words "corporation" and "business", but it's still the same old, tired routine. The people who have money pay to get things their way, high up among the list of which is making sure they get more money. Anyone who actually, seriously attempts to do something about it (which virtually no politician does, no matter what they might say they do) is going to find themselves fighting on every front with the thousands or even millions of individuals who are paid by the rich to do their bidding. The number of people who will actually willingly give up a paycheck because their industry is engaged in activities which are thought to be bad for the nation as a whole is very, very small.

I'll give you a quick example. I live in San Antonio, the home of serveral military bases. Like nearly everyone else in the nation, I was for cutting military spending at the end of the cold war. Also, like most reasonable people, I realized that high among the necessary means for cutting military spending was going to be the need for shutting down and scaling back some military bases. Finally, llike anyone who bothered to look at the situation, I realized there was no justification for keeping two air force bases, an army air base, an air force comm squadron, a national guard armory, an army logistical base, and a miliatary aerospace medical research base all in one town. When it was announced at least two of the bases would be closing, I rejoiced that the miliatrary would be cutting spending and that in the loss in profits to me via my company I would be benefitting the nation as a whole. It was nothing more or less than my patriotic duty. The people in general here, however vehemently protested the closure. They demanded "our" congressmen fight hard against the closure. Similarly, people are all for curtailing businesses, until their own paychecks are impacted, at which point they sing a completely different tune. They want everyone else to suffer the consequences of their vote, but make sure their vote doesn't negatively impact them personally. Even if they were actualy given a choice, they still would choose personal profit over moral considerations. It's human nature.

So is the USB port. First of all, anything appearing at one of the USB ports will automatcially also appear at the other. What's more, there is nothing whatsoever preventing the Tivo owner from connecting his TiVo to a USB hub, ....

Does TiVo even support USB hubs? If there's no driver for them than it won't.

Could you two take this wildly off-topic political discussion to PM (or some more appropriate forum)?

'Sorry, he just pushes my buttons. Mostly, I just ignore his posts, but I was in a cantankerous mood that evening. It would help, I think, if there were actually much that was on-topic to discuss. Until someone (who can talk about it) actually has a TA in their hands, there's not much to talk about in the TiVo / SDV world.

Does TiVo even support USB hubs? If there's no driver for them than it won't.

Well, not having developed any code for USB hubs, I could be mistaken, of course, but I was of the impression usb-ohci handled support for USB hubs. The drivers for usbcore, ehci-hcd, and usb-ohci are compiled into the 9.4 kernel. Of course, prior to 9.4, any use of hardware supported by those drivers required hacking with the backport drivers, but we're talking about the TA, so the discussion presupposes a 9.4 or later kernel.

So here is a question - If I have TWC, and in another room I have a TWC HD receiver, and I request a program that is on SDV, that should "switch on" that channel and my S3 unit - at least for a while - should be able to pick it up. Am I right? If I could rig that unit (perhaps by TWC DVR) to switch on the channel when I want to record something with my Tivo, as long as I point my Tivo at the correct SDV channel and set a manual recording of that channel, will that work and will I get my recording? Sneaky, but doable?

Next question - has anyone heard of any of the TA's being available for TWC anywhere? Particularly in SC? I am in Myrtle Beach, and have an email in to my inside guy, but he usually takes about a week or more to get back to me, and usually it is "we are working on it...."

So here is a question - If I have TWC, and in another room I have a TWC HD receiver, and I request a program that is on SDV, that should "switch on" that channel and my S3 unit - at least for a while - should be able to pick it up. Am I right? If I could rig that unit (perhaps by TWC DVR) to switch on the channel when I want to record something with my Tivo, as long as I point my Tivo at the correct SDV channel and set a manual recording of that channel, will that work and will I get my recording? Sneaky, but doable?

The problem is that your S3 will have no idea where the SDV channel that you requested via the TWC box is actually located. The actual frequency and PID could vary from day to day. When you 'request' the channel via the TWC box.. you have no idea what frequency and PID it gets assigned to... neither does the S3. So it will be there... but you dont know where.

So here is a question - If I have TWC, and in another room I have a TWC HD receiver, and I request a program that is on SDV, that should "switch on" that channel and my S3 unit - at least for a while - should be able to pick it up. Am I right? If I could rig that unit (perhaps by TWC DVR) to switch on the channel when I want to record something with my Tivo, as long as I point my Tivo at the correct SDV channel and set a manual recording of that channel, will that work and will I get my recording? Sneaky, but doable?

I'm not positive, but I don't think this will work because, even though the channel will be active on some frequency, the S3 still doesn't know what that frequency is so it won't know where to tune to get the channel. Unless that information comes in via the OOB data and the cableCARD tells the S3 in which case it would work.

So just because a channel is listed as channel 925 for instance, on both boxes, "turning on" channel 925 by tuning to it on the DVR or hd-STB won't "turn on" that same channel for the entire house (or block or quadrant) so that it will be tunable by simple going to channel 925 on the Tivo? Weird. I am sure there is a scientific explanation of some kind, but it sounds more like magic.

925 would be a virtual channel number. It has no relation to where the channel would physically be on the system.

If the channel is SDV, it will be nowhere until somebody chooses it, at which point it is assigned a free physical channel slot (not one specific for channel 925, just any available one), which all tuners in the node can tune it, if they know it is there. There is the possibility active SDV assignments could be sent to Cablecards in UDCPs, and the UDCP could map that physical location in its map, so it can be tuned. Or the UDCPs have the SDV channels flagged as non-tunable in their map.

__________________
Series 2 234 Hr Lifetime.
Window XP and Ubuntu Linux on my PCs.
Watching more and more in HD direct now.

Can someone update me on the best argument to get local cable to provide a tuning resolver? I spoke to someone at the FCC and explained that my cable company was denying channel access to cablecard users by moving to SDV and her response was that cable companies just have to provide the basic channels and digital and HD channels are in effect luxuries which they are not obligated to provide to cable card users.

I asked her to send me the specific rules governing the issue but have not gotten anything back yet.

In the meantime I am working on TW but am interested in being educated on arguments to make.

Can someone update me on the best argument to get local cable to provide a tuning resolver? I spoke to someone at the FCC and explained that my cable company was denying channel access to cablecard users by moving to SDV and her response was that cable companies just have to provide the basic channels and digital and HD channels are in effect luxuries which they are not obligated to provide to cable card users.

I asked her to send me the specific rules governing the issue but have not gotten anything back yet.

In the meantime I am working on TW but am interested in being educated on arguments to make.

Thanks.

The Tuning Adapter is coming... best advice is to ask to be a Beta tester and be reasonabally patient.

I am very patient, but one of the preliminary responses I got from TW was that they had no plans to get any tuning resolvers in, that there are not many CC customers, etc. I am still working on them but want to be ready to argue.

I am very patient, but one of the preliminary responses I got from TW was that they had no plans to get any tuning resolvers in, that there are not many CC customers, etc. I am still working on them but want to be ready to argue.

Did you get a letter from TW indicating SDV was being turned on and that the cable industry had worked with TiVo to create a Tuning Adapter... and that they would be available later this year? We did. Perhaps an escalation to corporate would solve the 'we arent getting any' situation. Might not help the 'when' though.

So just because a channel is listed as channel 925 for instance, on both boxes, "turning on" channel 925 by tuning to it on the DVR or hd-STB won't "turn on" that same channel for the entire house (or block or quadrant) so that it will be tunable by simple going to channel 925 on the Tivo? Weird. I am sure there is a scientific explanation of some kind, but it sounds more like magic.

To elaborate on what classicsat said, "952" and all the other channels on your cable system are just names. Before SDV, these names were assigned to permanent physical locations (such as "Video Program 10, Audio Program 10 in the 6 MHz QAM 256 carrier at 652 MHz"). In current SDV deployments, the great majority of channel number are still assigned to permanent physical locations, or you couldn't use unidirectional CableCARD devices like TiVo to tune any digital channels. The switched channels aren't always present on the wire, and when someone asks for one of them an available chunk of bandwidth in the pool reserved for switched broadcast is allocated and the requestor is told where it is ("virtual channel 952 is Video Program 3, Audio Program 3 on the QAM carrier at 412 MHz"); if the switched channel is already being used by one or more other subs, no allocation has to occur, and the requestor is just told where the channel is. If everyone on a network edge segment stops watching a switched channel, the bandwidth is deallocated and the system stops transmitting the channel on the wire in their neighborhood (it's possible that this doesn't happen until the bandwidth becomes needed for something else). The next time someone asks for the channel, it will likely be placed on another QAM carrier using arbitrary available ID numbers for the video and audio stream elements.

People have reported occasionally being able to tune switched channels on their TiVo. I'm not sure if I understand why--my understanding of CableCARDs is that, if a channel is encrypted, the card has to have received a message telling it that it's allowed to decrypt that channel (called "Entitlement Management" and "Entitlement Control" messages, EMMs and ECMs). Most systems encrypt every digital channel except those in the core basic tier, encryption of which is forbidden by FCC regs. Even if you stumble upon the current tuning for a switched channel, your CableCARD(s) shouldn't have been enabled to decrypt it. Maybe some systems don't encrypt everything.

__________________
Mike Scott

"To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts." -- hookbill

Is a copy of that letter available on-line somewhere? I don't think I got one of those.

You can read a transcription of the letter that I received here on hdtv.forsandiego.com.

So far as I've been able to tell, FCC regs don't require that they make every digital channel available to you through CableCARD. Explicitly, they aren't required to give you access to interactive services (VOD, IPPV, etc) via unidirectional CableCARDs and moving a channel to SDV turns it into an interactive service. There'd be strong basis for objection if they were doing this capriciously, but they aren't.

__________________
Mike Scott

"To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts." -- hookbill

People have reported occasionally being able to tune switched channels on their TiVo. I'm not sure if I understand why--my understanding of CableCARDs is that, if a channel is encrypted, the card has to have received a message telling it that it's allowed to decrypt that channel (called "Entitlement Management" and "Entitlement Control" messages, EMMs and ECMs). Most systems encrypt every digital channel except those in the core basic tier, encryption of which is forbidden by FCC regs. Even if you stumble upon the current tuning for a switched channel, your CableCARD(s) shouldn't have been enabled to decrypt it. Maybe some systems don't encrypt everything.

My local system encrypts everything with the exception of those channels forbidden to be encrypted, TBS-HD and strangely enough On Demand streams. The later can't be accessed via my S3 since the frequencies aren't provided to the cableCARDS, but my TV (without cards) has no problem accessing them if I happen to stumble across them.

I asked her to send me the specific rules governing the issue but have not gotten anything back yet.

It is important to keep in mind the way the law works. The law includes prohibitions and requirements. Prohibitions are things that are not to be done; requirements are things that must be done. For example, there is a requirement that local broadcast channels be available, and there is a prohibition against relying on integrated decryption for addressable services. For the vast majority of things, though, there are no legal requirements nor legal prohibitions, applicable. For those things, the "rules" (as such) that govern the mass-market commercial transaction are based on what the supplier explicitly offers and the customer therefore implicitly accepts. Even then, most aspects of a service will be totally without requirements or prohibitions, and it is simply up to day-to-day decisions. For example, in September, you might pay by check, and in October you might pay by money order. Since there are no legal requirements nor legal prohibitions governing that, and the service offering didn't specify, both are valid, and you can switch of as you see fit.

So asking for the law that says that someone is "allowed" to do something is lost cause. Laws don't list what is allowed... again, they only list what is required and what is prohibited. So, in this case, you're looking for the requirement that says they have to provide the tuning resolver, not that says they're allowed not to. If you cannot find a requirement that says they have to provide one (or a prohibition that precludes them from not providing one), then, based on the way laws work, they are allowed to or allowed not to, as they choose.

There are folks that feel that the law does require them to provide the tuning adapter, and folks that feel that the law doesn't require them to do so. To be honest, I don't remember which law is the one that the former group of folks are relying on... I'm sure if you wait long enough, one of them will provide a citation and a quotation of the relevant law, and then there will be a long and heated argument about whether it applies.

My local system encrypts everything with the exception of those channels forbidden to be encrypted

Encryption isn't the issue; as Mikey pointed out, the issue is interactivity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by morac

strangely enough On Demand streams. The later can't be accessed via my S3 since the frequencies aren't provided to the cableCARDS, but my TV (without cards) has no problem accessing them if I happen to stumble across them.

If you go with the interpretation that Mikey outlined, then that's fine, since VOD is interactive programming.

Encryption isn't the issue; as Mikey pointed out, the issue is interactivity.

If you go with the interpretation that Mikey outlined, then that's fine, since VOD is interactive programming.

"Mike" or "Michael", please. Nobody's ever called me "Mikey" since I lived in the Philadelpia area, where they'd say "Yo, My-ghee!".

I actually was saying that encryption should be an issue. It was my understanding that CableCARDs aren't supposed to be able to decrypt channels unless they've been explicitly told that they can decrypt them, and you shouldn't have been given permission to decrypt channels in the shared switched space. That may or may not be true, though, depending upon how the channels are identified in the entitlement management messages--those channels will have the same virtual numbers in the switched streams as they'd have in the fixed streams, and if entitlement to view and decrypt is provided in terms of virtual channel numbers, it may make sense.

__________________
Mike Scott

"To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts." -- hookbill